The first step, I suggest, is to question authority.

[odeon]

Only, his initial assumption is always that they are guilty because they are in a position of authority.

True BUT I assume that if people are in authority are guilty UNLESS they show me they are not. I am wary of them. Even perceived power.

They have to prove they are innocent?

[Queen Victoria]

I would suggest the question, "Would you like lemon or cream in your tea" when dealing with authority. 

[Al Swearegen]

Only, his initial assumption is always that they are guilty because they are in a position of authority.

True BUT I assume that if people are in authority are guilty UNLESS they show me they are not. I am wary of them. Even perceived power.

They have to prove they are innocent?

That helps, but I think that investigation and being around a person long enough can make your mind up one way or the other. I look for things to confirm they are corrupt and misusing their power and take a negative position on them. IF they either prove themselves in my eyes not to be or they demonstrate over a long enough period of time that they do not act in a way to justify themselves as power abusive...then yes I accept they are not. until them I am wary. I will be mistrustful.

[Al Swearegen]

Religious people scare the Jeebus out of me.  I question why they are so insecure as to NEED to rely on a crutch.  What they will do to me if they didn't have their magic man in the sky to keep them moral.

Yup.

The other thing of course is the whole are they prepared to have a 2013AD conversation (informed by 2013 informed realities) or a bronze age conversation? Now if they want to have such conversations in places of worship, fine. Just don't make choices that affect me on basis of primitive beliefs and practices. You can play with whatever toys you want in the comfort of you home and when I visit I am happy for you to show me but I insist you do not get me to play with them in my place in in the public sphere. there I want to have 2013 conversations with people living in 2013 about things that affect us in 2013

[Jack]

Don't tell the children.

[El]

The "experts" and the "official story"?

It would be a Grimm world is we believed all the official Tales.

[Scrapheap]

I hate to say it but this is actually one aspect of Lit's zaniness that I actually find myself nodding my head to. The racist , arse to mouth, blowing shit up, brave!!! bullshit makes me snicker at him BUT when he starts with his questioning authority and standing up to the pigs, rants, I find myself nodding

It's perhaps the only thing all 3 of us could agree on.

[McGiver]

The "experts" and the "official story"?

It would be a Grimm world is we believed all the official Tales.

still punny.  Glad the world hasn't jaded your sense of humor.

[odeon]

Only, his initial assumption is always that they are guilty because they are in a position of authority.

True BUT I assume that if people are in authority are guilty UNLESS they show me they are not. I am wary of them. Even perceived power.

They have to prove they are innocent?

That helps, but I think that investigation and being around a person long enough can make your mind up one way or the other. I look for things to confirm they are corrupt and misusing their power and take a negative position on them. IF they either prove themselves in my eyes not to be or they demonstrate over a long enough period of time that they do not act in a way to justify themselves as power abusive...then yes I accept they are not. until them I am wary. I will be mistrustful.

Some say I'm in a position of authority here. Should I always be mistrusted, initially?

[TA]

 

What if someone in authority saves your ass from being switched over to the dead persuasion?

[odeon]

What if someone in authority saves your ass from being switched over to the dead persuasion?

Keep on mistrusting them. They'll charge you, eventually.

[TA]

What if someone in authority saves your ass from being switched over to the dead persuasion?

Keep on mistrusting them. They'll charge you, eventually.

Even Harry Callahan?

[odeon]

What if someone in authority saves your ass from being switched over to the dead persuasion?

Keep on mistrusting them. They'll charge you, eventually.

Even Harry Callahan?

He isn't really in a position of authority. 

[TA]

What if someone in authority saves your ass from being switched over to the dead persuasion?

Keep on mistrusting them. They'll charge you, eventually.

Even Harry Callahan?

He isn't really in a position of authority. 

He has a badge and a gun, so he is authoritah.

[Al Swearegen]

Only, his initial assumption is always that they are guilty because they are in a position of authority.

True BUT I assume that if people are in authority are guilty UNLESS they show me they are not. I am wary of them. Even perceived power.

They have to prove they are innocent?

That helps, but I think that investigation and being around a person long enough can make your mind up one way or the other. I look for things to confirm they are corrupt and misusing their power and take a negative position on them. IF they either prove themselves in my eyes not to be or they demonstrate over a long enough period of time that they do not act in a way to justify themselves as power abusive...then yes I accept they are not. until them I am wary. I will be mistrustful.

Some say I'm in a position of authority here. Should I always be mistrusted, initially?

It is not a standard answer. I certainly did and would and found I had no need to be concerned. Should people? Maybe or maybe nort. Should they hold my wacky belief set?